This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-12-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that courts are not to give a statute a meaning that would lead to absurdities. If the words of a statute are susceptible of more than one meaning, the absurdity of the result of one construction is a strong argument against its adoption, and in favor of such sensible interpretation. We test a law by its result. A law should not be interpreted so as not to cause an injustice. There are laws which are generally valid but may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of its peculiar circumstances. We are not bound to apply them in slavish obedience to their language.[35] The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.[36] Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that the word "existing" should be interpreted to only qualify the term "NPC generation assets" and not the word "liabilities." | |||||